I do n`t disagree with that sentiment, but I speak in context with suggestion, not knowledge, philosophical suggestion. For instance, this sentiment: Nothing is known for certain of any individual merely on account the passage of time, but at the same time very much is assumed. We could talk around this subject area virtually forever, and why not, so long the brief affirmation at the end of it be all inclusive and bullet proof.

Philosophical sentiments/concentrated prospective have already long been with us, not my way, not anybodies way, it is simply a communicational format, no less than straight prose, or verse. To club all information together would amount to no more than an endless rambling stream, and solve absolutely nothing.

Your first sentence seems to endorse postmodernism . But your second sentence seems to claim that some information is better than other information.

Me, I choose that some information is better than other information, and I can tell you the criteria by which I can choose.

Spheres of balance wrote:

many prefer to compartmentalize mankind's knowledge, when in fact it's actually all one thing.

That's pretentiousness. You like everybody else must pick and choose among beliefs (i.e. compartmentalise("compartmentalize") if only because of common sense.

Some information being better than other information? - But if it is not accurate it is not even information. The best information must by definition be considered the most accurate. I follow your point of view, but consider all information to be equal, obviously though, taking it that it is actual information, that it does genuinely inform of what actually is.

Of information, so called information, Sports Science is a wash with it, misinformation I mean, because before the boundaries of physical performance are understood there exists no absolute foundation for physical performance related scientific knowledge. The reason why strength gains are not seen in trained individuals past the age of thirty five, forty five, and fifty five, and why Sports Science sees no further, is because Sports Science is not yet up to speed regards how one should be training at this time. Unfortunately however, education is an institution, one where no genuine information can be added or subtracted by side doors.
Youtube: Beyond Human... (Kates David)

That determinism does n`t exist, and that few people can live with this.
One should feel guilt exactly the same irrespective of whether it exists or not. All this thinking is totally irrelevant to living one`s life, not an excuse to become born again psychopaths.

Surely, determinism exists--at least to some level. I don't remember a single case of a dead person committing a crime. People with brain damage behave differently. Women who as fetuses were bathed in testosterone tend to have longer ring fingers (like men) and also tend to have vicious jealousies (like men)--trust me, I just had to divorce one.

Those who try to defend libertarian free will would have to refute those facts if they hope to convince me. Or they can *prove* their own beliefs in spirits or whatever gives their wills agency.

We still punish criminals because we're cheap...we can not afford to provide every person loving homes or enough love and therapy to reverse the effects of those that are not. The horrors of punishment are there to lean those on the fence in the direction of good in a more cost-effective way as their deterministic minds trial-and-error their paths to their best lives possible given their tools & environments.

But, yes, "One should feel guilt exactly the same irrespective of whether it exists or not". At least internally. Externally, one should be grateful if ones was not a life that led to crime. And have empathy towards those whose genes and lives had. Determinism says that they would be just as fortunate if they were in your place and you would have done exactly the same bad things in theirs.

Oh and whoever did so in a previous post, please don't bother correcting the British -ise to the American -ize anymore. I don't think you're gonna convince them. Was it Webster who intentionally misspelled those words and took the 'u' out of labor?

Very ad hominem, in the first place, but also completely denying of responsibility. On top of that, Henry, if you're Determined, then you cannot believe what they say -- unless you're already fated to -- so they are arguing to no effect.

One might better argue the opposite: that believing in Determinism is an excuse for remaining a victim or for behaving like a permanent moral wretch, simply on the pretext that one "couldn't help it."

Damn straight it's silly. As you say, it's "completely denying of responsibility" which basically is what I think informs the deterministic world view to begin with (a foundational denial of self-responsibility coupled with absolute license: 'yeah, I did it but it ain't my fault').

#

"you cannot believe what they say"

I don't. Liars, all. Every determinist knows (through experience) he's a choosing, self-directing creature, knows he's self-responsible and should be held responsible and yet each and every one will boldly lie, claiming the opposite (just so they can, as you say: 'behave like permanent moral wretches').

that believing in Determinism is an excuse for remaining a victim or for behaving like a permanent moral wretch, simply on the pretext that one "couldn't help it."

Some people indeed cannot help it, and courts of law recognise extenuating circumstances such as mental incompetence. illness or sometimes, menopause.Or being a child.

The law of the land has to fix arbitrary boundaries between competence and incompetence. Philosophers may plead extenuating circumstances for everyone. To understand all is to forgive all.

However some people have more duty of responsibility than others. Those who have more responsibility for others are the stronger, more intelligent, more powerful, and more able people.People who have received an education, often at public expense, have been taught reason which is the compass which points to better judgements.

Tomjrzk, I agree that Free Will is an excuse and a rationale for blaming people . Is it the case that Free Will believers are Conservatives and determinism believers are Left Wing?

Determinism would mean that "Left Winginess" would amount to nothing.

If people are simply the thralls of their environmental conditions, they can't be liberated from them. What's more, they're not owed any options or freedoms, because they can't use them anyway. So that would kill any Left-Wing aspirations to improve their conditions.

The upshot is that advocating a change to any political orientation -- conservative or liberal -- requires the presumption of free will. Absent it, you can't change anything anyway.

People who are predetermined cannot make "better" anything, and their "judgments" will change nothing. So if you believe in Determinism, you're not any kind of social reformer. In fact, you would advocate no change at all...nothing but the inevitable march of Predetermination, which does not need your advocacy.